Criticism and accommodation are associated with treatment concerns in close others to those with anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Those close to people with mental health difficulties (e.g., family members, romantic partners and close friends) are often involved in their care decisions. Research shows that criticism by close others and accommodation of symptoms are associated with symptom severity and treatment response. Recent research has found that those close to someone with an anxiety disorder report a range of concerns about their loved one starting cognitive-behaviour therapy (e.g., that treatment will cause the person to change in undesirable ways). The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between close others' criticism and symptom accommodation and their treatment concerns, hypothesizing that these relationships would be significant. DESIGN: Close others to those with notable anxiety (N = 287) completed self-report measures online. Multiple regression was used to test our hypothesis. METHODS: Respondents who identified as being close to someone with notable anxiety completed measures of their accommodation of anxiety symptoms, feelings of criticism/hostility towards them, concerns about them starting treatment, perceived impairment due to anxiety, and their own and their loved ones' treatment history. RESULTS: Greater criticism and accommodation significantly predicted greater treatment concerns, with a medium effect size, controlling for degree of impairment due to anxiety and treatment history. CONCLUSIONS: Criticism and accommodation may reflect appraisal of the person with anxiety as weak or fragile, which may evoke concerns about treatment success. Implications for clinicians and anxiety treatment are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".